2013 Reed.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 2.5 Canada (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by‐nc‐sa/2.5/ca/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.

Abstract

Objective – Texas A&M University
Libraries have delivered free documents and interlibrary loans for ten years
via the Get it for me service. This
study explores whether the needs of customers are being met, areas for
improvement, acceptable turnaround times, why some resources are never picked
up, preferred format and steps to obtaining resources, places searched before
submitting a request, and whether users ever purchased resources after
obtaining them through Get it for me.

Design – Online questionnaire.

Setting – Large academic library system located in Texas, United States.

Methods – The authors emailed all currently registered users of the Get it for me service (n=23,063) inviting them to participate
in a survey. The survey ran for two weeks, with no follow-up emails sent.

Main Results – The return rate of 3.18% (n=735/23,063) surpassed the participant goal to achieve a
confidence level of 95%, with a confidence interval of 4%.

Researchers found that 79%
of respondents are satisfied with turnaround time, with 54% of respondents
desiring items within three days. Expectations increased with position in the
academy. Time is the significant factor in users not retrieving ordered items;
items are no longer needed after deadlines pass or other related materials are
found. Responses revealed that 55% of users prefer print to e-books, although
70% of participants would accept an e-book version if print is not available. Participants
were evenly split between reading documents online and printing them to read
offline. About one quarter of respondents bought or suggested that the library
purchase an item requested via Get it for
me. When participants encountered a problem, 55% of respondents would
contact library staff and 45% would check the service FAQ. Of those that
contacted staff, there is a 94% satisfaction rate. Overall, 95% of respondents
checked the libraries’ online catalogue for availability, 83% looked in e-journal
collections, and 74% checked Google or Google Scholar. Get it for me was complimented on its user-friendly interfaces and
policies, and the money and time it saves its users.
In terms of criticism, users requested better quality scanned documents, longer
interlibrary loan times, and a PDF instead of a link when an article is found
by staff.

Conclusion – The author concludes that the document delivery and
interlibrary loan services delivered by Get
it for me are meeting the expectations of users, with 99% of respondents
reporting that the Get it for me service
meets or somewhat meets their needs. Areas that required improvement were
identified and strategies put in place to improve service. This questionnaire
can be applied to other libraries to assist them in learning about document
delivery and interlibrary loan service users and their expectations.

Commentary

Studies on interlibrary
loan and document delivery services are not new in the library community. This
survey updates previous work by including questions never before asked about
preferred formats of books and methods of receiving electronic documents, as
well as whether service use inspires personal purchase.

The participation rate of
only 3.18% is low, but well within the authors’ desired confidence range. The
method used for data collection makes sense for this type of study, and the
questions reflect clearly stated objectives. The authors do a good job of
explaining how results differ by subsets of participants based on academic rank
(undergraduate, graduate, professor, etc). However, the authors do not compare
the respondent demographics to those of the university population.

While this study is
assessing a local service, the authors ask questions and provide suggestions
that are relevant to other institutions. Unfortunately, the authors never give
a complete list of questions utilized, leaving people wishing to duplicate
their efforts having to comb through the article in order to piece together
questions to ask. The service improvements made are clear and transferable
across many institutions, including reiteration of the importance of request details
to staff, high standards for scanned documents, addition of ability of users to
re-submit a request for a paper resource that might first come to them in
e-book format, highlighting the service’s tutorial link, and reducing the
number of times customers need to log in to access library records.

This study is an example
of one step in an excellent assessment cycle of this service. When the document
delivery and interlibrary loan service first debuted in 2002, it was the subject
of a user survey a year later. In the decade it has been in existence, tweaks
have been made to the service and its name. Instead of simply leaving the
service alone, it was assessed again and clear improvements were made. As
technologies change, it is critical to review past decisions and explore new
opportunities to ensure the best service for library users.